Lilburne:It seems in every other thread, you, or wombatron, or anarchist cain, or some other person (or account) is pointing new members to Long's articles and lectures; it's very cadre-like. I'm concerned that young, impressionable libertarians are getting caught up with Long's eloquence, erudition, and "progressive" sympathies, but too few are taking a hard look at the real-world truth-value, logical soundness, and meaningfulness of his eudaimonist doctrines.
Well, to be honest, Long is very good at explaining the position. Aristotelian libertarianism isn't just Long's play-thing, though; Rand, Rasmussen, Den Uyl, Plauche, and others also make very good arguments for it, and I try to direct those new to libertarianism to these thinkers as well. Also, I've tried to summarize the Aristotelian libertarian argument several times on these forums, and I'll see if I can find the links for you. GAP's old posts are also very enlightening.
As far as your earlier question goes, one non-trivial result of positing a third aim is supports the case for there being an objective natural end. I don't think that this argument is especially important or essential, though; it's a tautology, and doesn't by itself make the case for eudaimonism.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Lilburne: It seems in every other thread, you, or wombatron, or anarchist cain, or some other person (or account) is pointing new members to Long's articles and lectures; it's very cadre-like. I'm concerned that young, impressionable libertarians are getting caught up with Long's eloquence, erudition, and "progressive" sympathies, but too few are taking a hard look at the real-world truth-value, logical soundness, and meaningfulness of his eudaimonist doctrines.
It seems in every other thread, you, or wombatron, or anarchist cain, or some other person (or account) is pointing new members to Long's articles and lectures; it's very cadre-like. I'm concerned that young, impressionable libertarians are getting caught up with Long's eloquence, erudition, and "progressive" sympathies, but too few are taking a hard look at the real-world truth-value, logical soundness, and meaningfulness of his eudaimonist doctrines.
I would say it's a difficult concept to get across for one, like Plauche has expressed it: it's open-ended. I'm sure that doesn't bring too much light to the concept either. So why have it? Why investigate it if it's not immediately apparent? Some of it has to do with the pursuit of finding out what it means to begin with. Then the pursuit becomes a journey in and of itself. Is it a fleeting concept? Unreal and full of tricks that is a waste of time or tricking somebody along a path that offers nothing but fleeting dreams that lead to nowhere? The individual will come along these questions along the path quite possibly or maybe I'm on a tangent that is merely poetic and offers nothing that the intellect can grasp. So I'll try to put it forth in clearer definable terms.
Eudaemonia is the fulfillment of an object. Aristotle in his Ethics mentions what is happy related to passions and contemplation. Happy has become such an emotional term now a days. In the past it has also been associated with beauty, well-being, or quality. To speak of any object, let's say a thought or my being (in general), the fulfillment, the general well-being of a thought, in other words, does the thought provide clarity, is it a good thought, and is the thought being fulfilled to some known potential. It is a question but also something wondered upon. So why happiness? Here's the best example I can come up with currently: life is life but given the life of a particular dog is the life of that dog reaching it's potential? Is it living the best it can live? Thus in some measure it is a question of health for good health fulfills life. But it's also more than simply health cause it has to do with the potential of all that a dog can be. Like the old army commercials: be all you can be.
Now how that will happen, and will any one person find a good, true way to fulfill their potential? And what is that potential. Sometimes it's a state of mind - somebody gets down on him or her self and they are shunning any arising opportunities based on a thought, a feeling, or maybe they are listening to an old wise saying their grandfather told them. But is it good that they are walking away from an opportunity that just has arisen. Did they walk away cause they were depressed or maybe they were scared. In hindsight was that a good choice. Were they actually looking out for him or her self, or did they mess up and will this cause regrets? Will they go down a path that counters their own life slowly - popping addictive pills weeping every night, or will they find the courage to reach deep within themselves to take what happened as a learning experience that might actually lead into something better? Some people find beauty in a withering sunflower in late summer or cherry blossoms falling off the tree in early spring. And at the ripe old age I too hope to find the beauty in the moment. To find fulfillment in what could easily be seen as nearing the end of the road and not much to look forward to. But hey, if I'm dying, like the old Amerindian adage I want to sing, live that moment to the fullest and sing as that song goes: "It is a good day to die."
But what if I am doing poorly, and I am only half-ass at doing this or that. What if I don't even know myself anymore, or maybe I cut corners, cheat, lie, and seek to merely get by. However I experience this journey it will be fulfilled at it's best. Even if that best is poor, mediocre, somewhat, or a little better than I enjoyed it yesterday. No matter what, it will be what it will be. It will be the fulfillment of what it is. And in that sense, doing poorly is fulfilling doing poorly. Not even if I intentionally try to fulfill doing poorly and intentionally doing the best I can at doing poorly. Intentionally or not, it will be fulfilled as it is. It's beauty, even if it be a mountain or an ugly old goat. They are reaching their fullest and what that fullest is - is what it is.
I find myself needing to be a bit poetic to explain it. It has that characteristic to allow the uniqueness, thus, individual come out in each of us. ah, maybe I'm merely playing with words - but I find truth in this.
wombatron: Lilburne:It seems in every other thread, you, or wombatron, or anarchist cain, or some other person (or account) is pointing new members to Long's articles and lectures; it's very cadre-like. I'm concerned that young, impressionable libertarians are getting caught up with Long's eloquence, erudition, and "progressive" sympathies, but too few are taking a hard look at the real-world truth-value, logical soundness, and meaningfulness of his eudaimonist doctrines. Well, to be honest, Long is very good at explaining the position. Aristotelian libertarianism isn't just Long's play-thing, though; Rand, Rasmussen, Den Uyl, Plauche, and others also make very good arguments for it, and I try to direct those new to libertarianism to these thinkers as well. Also, I've tried to summarize the Aristotelian libertarian argument several times on these forums, and I'll see if I can find the links for you. GAP's old posts are also very enlightening. As far as your earlier question goes, one non-trivial result of positing a third aim is supports the case for there being an objective natural end. I don't think that this argument is especially important or essential, though; it's a tautology, and doesn't by itself make the case for eudaimonism.
Also, it may be the ambiguity of the medium, but by "(or account)", are you implying that you think someone is using sock puppets? If not, forgive my misunderstanding...
dubya, paragraph breaks please.
wombatron:Also, it may be the ambiguity of the medium, but by "(or account)", are you implying that you think someone is using sock puppets?
I do not think someone necessarily is. But if it were so, it would fit the ambitious cadre atmosphere that seems to surround the current LL movement.
Lilburne: Laughing Man, If you understand Long's position well enough to be ardently promoting it, you should be able to provide a rough, distilled answer to such a basic question yourself.
Laughing Man, If you understand Long's position well enough to be ardently promoting it, you should be able to provide a rough, distilled answer to such a basic question yourself.
Long offers a critique of Mises's theory of action in which ultimate ends are considered beyond rational assessment. Writing in "Economics and Its Ethical Assumptions," Long writes:
"I'm not so sure about that; if you really think the whole thing rests on an ultimate thing that's arbitrary, I'm not sure that whether it's one or many makes that much difference. But at any rate, the assumption that you can't rationally assess ends is something I'm not convinced of."
Long goes on to suggest the procedure of reflective equilibration.
But the main point is, if ends are rationally assessable according to a philosopher and his followers, it seems fair to ask for a rational assessment of the ultimate ends they are proposing. Are ultimate ends or are they not rationally assessable? If so, then provide the ultimate ends and their rational assessment. If not, then clearly say so. That is how I interpret Lilburne's argument.
"It would be preposterous to assert apodictically that science will never succeed in developing a praxeological aprioristic doctrine of political organization..." (Mises, UF, p.98)
wombatron:Also, it may be the ambiguity of the medium, but by "(or account)", are you implying that you think someone is using sock puppets? If not, forgive my misunderstanding...
I think the Anarchist Cain/Laughing Man "I don't know what I want to call myself" thing may be confusing to some.
As an interruption and an offtopic aside, it just occured to me that the annoying thing about leftoids, is that you guys assume all sorts of epistemelogical leaps that can neither be proven or disproven. And because they are epistemelogical problems, it just *seems* dishonest to claim knowledge that no one has. Castles made of sand.
liberty student: dubya, paragraph breaks please.
Our big-hearted friend wilderness is just in a poetical mood. But stanzas would be nice.
Lilburne: wombatron:Also, it may be the ambiguity of the medium, but by "(or account)", are you implying that you think someone is using sock puppets? I do not think someone necessarily is. But if it were so, it would fit the ambitious cadre atmosphere that seems to surround the current LL movement.
Well, there is a distinction between Aristotelian libertarianism and left-libertarianism. In fact, Rasmussen and Den Uyl could probably be considered "right-libertarians", while Plauche and Sciabarra don't see themselves as being left or right, and Rand and Veatch didn't even consider themselves to be libertarians. Chartier, Johnson, and Long are are Aristotelian LLs, and Aristotelianism is a popular tendency within the ALL, but there are others as well (Stirnerism and utilitarianism, for example).
I put in paragraph breaks so everybody can rest and drink something cold for a moment if it so pleases ya. Are those enough paragraphs or more needed?
liberty student: As an interruption and an offtopic aside, it just occured to me that the annoying thing about leftoids, is that you guys assume all sorts of epistemelogical leaps that can neither be proven or disproven. And because they are epistemelogical problems, it just *seems* dishonest to claim knowledge that no one has. Castles made of sand.
Like I've said before, I think part of the difference is epistemological. From your perspective it may seem dishonest, but I don't think it is since other's aren't using the same epistemological framework as you. I think that everyone involved in this debate is honestly seeking the truth.
liberty student: wombatron:Also, it may be the ambiguity of the medium, but by "(or account)", are you implying that you think someone is using sock puppets? If not, forgive my misunderstanding... I think the Anarchist Cain/Laughing Man "I don't know what I want to call myself" thing may be confusing to some. As an interruption and an offtopic aside, it just occured to me that the annoying thing about leftoids, is that you guys assume all sorts of epistemelogical leaps that can neither be proven or disproven. And because they are epistemelogical problems, it just *seems* dishonest to claim knowledge that no one has. Castles made of sand.
I'm trying not to derail this either, but this is exactly what I've been saying too recently. Definitely being done by others more pronouncedly that I don't see here at the moment in this current thread. Are you talking about the constant questions about a position when the questioner isn't playing their hand - isn't showing their knowledge based position? I think some people are believing that I'm talking down on them when I state "they" don't have knowledge on the topic. It's not that I'm calling them stupid - I'm stupid sometimes. It's more an assertion that they don't know what it is, so, to probe another person and then simply continually dismiss the person being probed without even stating what their knowledgeable assertion is - is to probe until the person being probed states something that the one probing can trap them into. I mean if somebody is probed to reason long enough - pages long even - eventually a word or two will pop up that will be dismissed. Yet they will not put anything on the table that they actively know about. It's all about what I know or he knows, etc..., but not what "they" know. or am I off-base.
wombatron: other's aren't using the same epistemological framework as you.
other's aren't using the same epistemological framework as you.
this is exactly what I mean when I state they don't have knowledge on the subject. It would be better of me to use these words that you put forth wombatron. It's not that "they" (the ambiguous they...lol) don't have knowledge. It's that they don't have this particular knowledge. I'm not being slanderous at all. I'm merely trying to state more accurately now: they are working in a different epistemological framework.
wombatron:I think that everyone involved in this debate is honestly seeking the truth.
I no longer believe this.
liberty student:you guys assume all sorts of epistemelogical leaps that can neither be proven or disproven. And because they are epistemelogical problems, it just *seems* dishonest to claim knowledge that no one has. Castles made of sand.
Excellent point.
liberty student: wombatron:I think that everyone involved in this debate is honestly seeking the truth. I no longer believe this.
well "they" are not putting their knowledge on the table for all to see. They are hiding it. They are trying to shoot others knowledge down, but then they don't replace it with anything. They approach it as a problem with no solutions - no counter argument. They are not applying a rational to their position, merely denouncing others rational.
wilderness:they are working in a different epistemological framework.
wilderness, I'm definitely not saying you would ever use it in this way, but wouldn't such a statement, if generally accepted, be an awfully tempting cop-out for someone who really has nothing coherent or meaningful to say?
wilderness, who are "they"?
I got lost when you used probe 4 times in one sentence. I have no idea what you are talking about.
wilderness: They approach it as a problem with no solutions - no counter argument. They are not applying a rational to their position, merely denouncing others rational.
They approach it as a problem with no solutions - no counter argument. They are not applying a rational to their position, merely denouncing others rational.
Would you be referring to proponents of a distinguished is/ought divide, perchance?
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
wilderness:well "they" are not putting their knowledge on the table for all to see. They are hiding it. They are trying to shoot others knowledge down, but then they don't replace it with anything. They approach it as a problem with no solutions - no counter argument. They are not applying a rational to their position, merely denouncing others rational.
If you could name names, or cite specific examples that would really help. I don't read or recall every debate here. If you don't want to do it publicly, then send me detail by PM. You're not a foolish guy, so I am sure you are saying something worthwhile, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what it is.
Lilburne: wilderness:they are working in a different epistemological framework. wilderness, I'm definitely not saying you would ever use it in this way, but wouldn't such a statement, if generally accepted, be an awfully tempting cop-out for someone who really has nothing coherent or meaningful to say?
Are you saying that two different epistemological frameworks meet in a grocery store and A asks B a question. B provides A with an answer, but A doesn't like the answer and then merely states, "We're in two completely different epistemological frameworks so we'll drop it." Yet A and B are applying their knowledge in the real world. But they don't talk about it. They don't try to discover the truth of what is. So they go on applying their two differing opinions without hashing it out. Eventually these two differing opinions may reach a huge impasse - it's a showdown between Rothbard and Bernanke - and now one will call the shots and the other will lay in wait for some future day unless they hash it out and get it over. It would have been better a long time ago when they were children, but they've grown up now and their knowledge is making an impact upon the world. Now it's getting serious. So what to do now? Is that something you're asking.
liberty student: I got lost when you used probe 4 times in one sentence. I have no idea what you are talking about.
lol... I should have re-wrote it. While I was typing it I felt a bit confused but thought maybe it could be weeded out. It was sloppy on my part.
liberty student: If you could name names, or cite specific examples that would really help. I don't read or recall every debate here. If you don't want to do it publicly, then send me detail by PM. You're not a foolish guy, so I am sure you are saying something worthwhile, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what it is.
AM, AJ, and sometimes BP. BP seems to put something on the table sometimes, but then throws in comments on how he could rationalize killing innocents. He's trying to make a point - but he doesn't spit it out. This is when he's being like AJ. Counter the other person's argument but don't provide one to replace it. continually probe for a weak spot - then strike and attack. Yet never put an idea in play on their own behalf. AM is always trying to play the semantics game, defining, redefining words. Yet he's not offering any knowledge based on a particular position he personally holds. It's all overly critical. It's one thing to be critical, but another to be critical but not offer an alternative. If this is just me, then I need to clear my head.
zefreak: wilderness: They approach it as a problem with no solutions - no counter argument. They are not applying a rational to their position, merely denouncing others rational. Would you be referring to proponents of a distinguished is/ought divide, perchance?
technically, i don't know if it's that.
wilderness:Are you saying that two different epistemological frameworks meet in a grocery store and A asks B a question. B provides A with an answer, but A doesn't like the answer and then merely states, "We're in two completely different epistemological frameworks so we'll drop it." Yet A and B are applying their knowledge in the real world. But they don't talk about it. They don't try to discover the truth of what is. So they go on applying their two differing opinions without hashing it out. Eventually these two differing opinions may reach a huge impasse - it's a showdown between Rothbard and Bernanke - and now one will call the shots and the other will lay in wait for some future day unless they hash it out and get it over. It would have been better a long time ago when they were children, but they've grown up now and their knowledge is making an impact upon the world. Now it's getting serious. So what to do now? Is that something you're asking.
No, I'm asking.... um... well, I'm asking what I wrote. I can't come up with such vivid imagery for it, so it'll have to stand on its own.
Lilburne,
The cop out would be the person saying they are relying on a different epistemological framework and simply state that without offering any argument or position of their own. So in all honesty they don't have one and are thereby just lying in wait, like a wolf behind the bushes, ready to run out and poke holes in the others argument without any solutions to offer in replacement. No solutions means no knowledge of their own to offer. Merely arguing to defeat the other, but not to provide a truth of their own to replace it with.
wilderness:This is when he's being like AJ. Counter the other person's argument but don't provide one to replace it. continually probe for a weak spot - then strike and attack. Yet never put an idea in play on their own behalf.
A benefit of that approach is clarity. It's for the same reason why in Oxford debates the two sides argue over affirming or denying one proposition, and not multiple.
And all three of them have expressed positive positions multiple times.
wilderness:No solutions means no knowledge of their own to offer. Merely arguing to defeat the other, but not to provide a truth of their own to replace it with.
Well what if one honestly doesn't know with certainty any positive truths regarding the philosophical topic at hand, only that the other is arguing speciously? Should he just make stuff up?
Lilburne: wilderness:This is when he's being like AJ. Counter the other person's argument but don't provide one to replace it. continually probe for a weak spot - then strike and attack. Yet never put an idea in play on their own behalf. A benefit of that approach is clarity. It's for the same reason why in Oxford debates the two sides argue over affirming or denying one proposition, and not multiple. And all three of them have expressed positive positions multiple times.
I really can't argue with that. So therefore the default seems to be differing epistemologies. I find their positions to be unperceptive of justice or injustice and therefore either one (justice and injustice) could easy walk right in the front door and they wouldn't know it.
Lilburne: wilderness:No solutions means no knowledge of their own to offer. Merely arguing to defeat the other, but not to provide a truth of their own to replace it with. Well what if one honestly doesn't know with certainty any positive truths regarding the philosophical topic at hand, only that the other is arguing speciously? Should he just make stuff up?
To state if the other is arguing speciously is to perceive something wrong based on what then? If there is no truth foothold to measure the discussion, then what is measuring the assertion that the other person is wrong?
wilderness:I find their positions to be unperceptive of justice or injustice and therefore either one (justice and injustice) could easy walk right in the front door and they wouldn't know it.
Just because they deny universal objective justice doesn't mean they deny subjective or inter-subjective justice. But that's a topic for another thread.
wilderness:To state if the other is arguing speciously is to perceive something wrong based on what then? If there is no truth foothold to measure the discussion, then what is measuring the assertion that the other person is wrong?
Based on logic, which is not necessarily an object of the particular philosophical topic being discussed.
Lilburne: wilderness:To state if the other is arguing speciously is to perceive something wrong based on what then? If there is no truth foothold to measure the discussion, then what is measuring the assertion that the other person is wrong? Based on logic, which is not necessarily an object of the particular philosophical topic being discussed.
human logic is universal?
wilderness:human logic is universal?
Capacity for logic is not universal, but the laws of logic are.
Lilburne: wilderness:human logic is universal? Capacity for logic is not universal, but the laws of logic are.
i agree. I logically begin ontologically with life is, liberty is, and property is and then derive my ethics from this.
wilderness: Lilburne: wilderness:human logic is universal? Capacity for logic is not universal, but the laws of logic are. i agree. I logically begin ontologically with life is, liberty is, and property is and then derive my ethics from this.
Property is an ethical concept, it doesn't exist in an ontological sense. There is no property sans ethics.
Lilburne: And now you seem to be characterizing that as a universal overall ultimate end, which therefore does NOT depend on the individual, contradicting your earlier "it depends on the individual" answer. So which is it? Does it depend on the individual or not?
And now you seem to be characterizing that as a universal overall ultimate end, which therefore does NOT depend on the individual, contradicting your earlier "it depends on the individual" answer.
So which is it? Does it depend on the individual or not?
Ah my apologies, I thought you were asking how many different ultimate ends there could be in the sense as something besides the ultimate end of social preference. Well my personal eudiamonia is a life of intellectual advancement.
Lilburne:Laughing Man, If you understand Long's position well enough to be ardently promoting it, you should be able to provide a rough, distilled answer to such a basic question yourself.
If you know the position then why ask the question? Seems like a waste of time unless you just like testing people.
Lilburne:It seems in every other thread, you, or wombatron, or anarchist cain, or some other person (or account) is pointing new members to Long's articles and lectures; it's very cadre-like.
I am Anarchist Cain I'm not demanding that people go to Long's lectures. He is a philosopher and I happen to agree with his viewpoint and in agreeing with him, I am filled with the desire to spread his ideas in order to encourage more to hear his argument.
Lilburne: I'm concerned that young, impressionable libertarians are getting caught up with Long's eloquence, erudition, and "progressive" sympathies, but too few are taking a hard look at the real-world truth-value, logical soundness, and meaningfulness of his eudaimonist doctrines.
Who is being the cadre now?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
BP seems to put something on the table sometimes, but then throws in comments on how he could rationalize killing innocents.
I never claimed that I can *legitimately* rationalize killing innocents, I was rejecting argumentation ethics style arguments.
He's trying to make a point - but he doesn't spit it out.
Oh, I have been quite clearly making a point - you just apparently have been missing it.
zefreak: wilderness: Lilburne: wilderness:human logic is universal? Capacity for logic is not universal, but the laws of logic are. i agree. I logically begin ontologically with life is, liberty is, and property is and then derive my ethics from this. Property is an ethical concept, it doesn't exist in an ontological sense. There is no property sans ethics.
I've been painstaking trying to tell him why conflating ethics with ontology is absurd over the course of multiple threads.